Jump to content

New to making video media, good budget, need advice

mechtech

Hi Guys,

 

I am about to get into creating video reviews of various types of products. I already run a small media company, and we are now expanding into YouTube realm etc.

 

I have been following LTT for a long time, and I was lucky enough to have previously watched some of Brandon's videos such as best starter cameras under $1000.

 

There is no set budget, but ideally, I would like to spend less than ~$4000, either CAD or $3300 USD *hopefully* - This excludes editing software eg: Premier

 

Camera: Sony DSC-RX100M IV. $1200 CAD with extra batteries, carrying case, miniature tripod and extra chargers.
Supplementary: I plan on eventually adding on a Yi 4K Action Cam, maybe from the get go - both for vacation trips and pro action shots.


I decided to start with a 4k Camera, and the model that appeals to me the most is the Sony DSC-RX100M IV.
- It is compact and I will be able to also use it during my travels.

- It seems to have good auto-focus, and high quality video capabilities that should do great for mostly still object filming or shots.

 

SD Storage: SanDisk Extreme Pro 256GB UHS-I/U3. $170 CAD


This seems to be a good choice for 4k recording, thinking of starting with one, but possibly getting two if budget allows.

 

Lighting:

 

For the studio type shooting, I am thinking of starting with CFL lighting with impact softboxes and a china ball. Eventually I plan graduating to Westscott Flex LED lighting when it will make sense budget wise.

I understand CFL tends to give a green hue to images and video, but it will be a good starting point to start correcting colors and balance whites during editing stages.

 

Accessories - Stands - Tripods - Mounts - Stabilizing Monopod Bars

Now, I found myself lost in the large number of accessories available, B&H for example has a large selection of tripods, tripod head accessories, supports, stands, rigs, as most of you know it does not end.

 

This is where I need most help, is there a good standard popular tripod that is fairly priced? What about the swivel mount or tripod head is it called? 

 

Again, I will mainly be shooting product reviews displayed on a tabletop, so I suppose it would be cool to have a rig that can go around items a little bit. I'm very sorry if I sound like a newb, I am totally new at this.

 

1) Stabilizing Monopod

 

Manfrotto MVM500 Monopod + 500 series head seems to be a sure choice - ~$300 USD - ~ 375 CAD 


Is there a small compact stabilizing stick compatible with the Sony camera - something ideal for vacation trips, not too cumbersome to take with me?

2) Tripod + head 

I have no idea what to  get here

3) What Else?

 

What else should I get? I am really liking the Edelkrone Stand Plus found on the video below. I did not find it available in Canada yet, but it seems perfect for product shots and close angles. Better than a tripod for many cases. The Crane looks great too, it would likely replace the need for motorized rigs or things of that nature, but no idea how much it would cost. 

 

In summary, I am not trying to go "cheap", I am willing to spend a good amount of change to get a really good starting package that will serve me and my company for years to come. Thanks for all the help!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

hey Mechtech,

 

Cameras

- That Sony is a pretty slick vlogging camera, but honestly if you're looking for more flexibility in shooting reviews and really taking advantage of the benefits 4K affords, I'd upgrade your A-cam choice to a Sony a6300 or equivalent that offers interchangeable lenses. With a suitable adapter, you could likely use any new or legacy lenses you may have laying around. Buy lenses used - B&H has a great used offering (i usually got for 9, 10s and above).

- We've got a bunch of those Yi 4K action cams for one of our 360 video rigs, and they've lived up to the hype - feel comfortable making that purchase. 

 

Lighting

Starting out, get whatever lighting packs you can get off Amazon or your e-tailer of choice. Definitely invest in a collapsable reflector/diffuser so you can mould lighting and take advantage of natural light. 

 

Tripod

Most likely your camera rig, even with external monitor, power etc attached, are so going to be light that you needn't waste money on an expensive ball head just yet. I still recommend the Vanguard Alta Pro 263AB to start out. Plus it'll let you prop the camera over your devices, kinda like the Edelkrone Stand Plus you liked. 

 

tripods-02612-vanguard-alta-pro-pivoting

 

Stabalizer

I'd personally suggest the Steadicam Merlin 2. There are cheaper options out there but B&H is doing a rebate promo, so it can be had for $169 at the moment. 

 

Hope this helps. Let me know if you have any other questions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Imaginfity! Certainly very helpful.

 

So if I upgrade to the Sony a6300 to take advantage of changing lenses, price increase is not significant.

 

With a similar accessory package, a couple of batteries, carrying bag, it goes for $1,600 CAD

So as we stand:
Sony a6300 - 1600 CAD
Yi 4K - 150 CAD + accessories 50 CAD 
SanDisk Extreme Pro 256GB UHS-I/U3. 170 CAD
Lighting - between 200-300 CAD for softboxes, reflectors

Vanguard Alta Pro 263AB Tripod + SBH-100 Ball head - 230 CAD
Steadicam Merlin 2 - What a deal! - 269 USD down to 169 MIR* hopefully still in stock by mid-month when I will be ready to purchase.

I am looking at about 2,800 CAD so far in investment, a bit less after MIR.

 

Now, if I go with the a6300 - this brings another unknown for me; Lenses! I know Brandon raves about the Metabones Speedbooster addon to make many lenses better, so that is something I can get, but I have much research to do on this topic.

You bring a great point about tripod supporting external monitor. Is that something I should go for from the get go?

 

Is there anything else that I should get for starters? maybe a taller secondary tripod? or is there an existing extension bar for the Vanguard?

 

External power on the other hand, I don't see myself needing it right away, power adapters for studio type shooting, and extra batteries for my travelling photography should be sufficient.

For stabilizing sticks, the Vanguard looks like a great starting point, but is there something even smaller, not so much for professional but personal use, that would be ideal for when I am travelling. For example just a thin stick similar to the ones used for stabilizing smartphones. Collapsable or small enough to carry around in a backpack during a walk or visiting places.

Finally, should I also get a photography backpack as opposed to trying to use some small random bag? I am not a big guy, 5'ft 7", so when travelling, I am looking to carry as little as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, mechtech said:

SanDisk Extreme Pro 256GB UHS-I/U3. 170 CAD

What is this SSD for, storage media for offloading files from the memory cards of the camera?  256GB is quite small, especially if you are considering using an A6300 to film 4K.

 

While Metabones adapters are wonderful, know that the electronic adapters are not 100% perfect.  They can sometimes glitch out or become buggy requiring you to try a few tricks to get them working with the lenses again (i.e. Canon EF lenses).  For non electronic adapters, there are cheaper alternatives if you do not need the telecompressor optics.

 

If you are going to be using the cameras for filming, get a proper video head on the tripod and avoid using photo tripod heads.

 

What kind of lighting do you plan to get?  You can buy small on camera LED panels for when you travel, and buy larger panels for "studio" work.  You have panels, spot lights, bi-color LED panels, etc.  Soft boxes and reflectors are just light modifiers and shapers.

 

What about audio?

Guide: DSLR or Video camera?, Guide: Film/Photo makers' useful resources, Guide: Lenses, a quick primer

Nikon D4, Nikon D800E, Fuji X-E2, Canon G16, Gopro Hero 3+, iPhone 5s. Hasselblad 500C/M, Sony PXW-FS7

ICT Consultant, Photographer, Video producer, Scuba diver and underwater explorer, Nature & humanitarian documentary producer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ALwin said:

What is this SSD for, storage media for offloading files from the memory cards of the camera?  256GB is quite small, especially if you are considering using an A6300 to film 4K.

 

While Metabones adapters are wonderful, know that the electronic adapters are not 100% perfect.  They can sometimes glitch out or become buggy requiring you to try a few tricks to get them working with the lenses again (i.e. Canon EF lenses).  For non electronic adapters, there are cheaper alternatives if you do not need the telecompressor optics.

 

If you are going to be using the cameras for filming, get a proper video head on the tripod and avoid using photo tripod heads.


The SanDisk is an SD card certified for write speeds required to film 4k. I know it is very small, I am considering getting two of them, but I also keep in mind that while shooting in my home studio, I will have the ability to unload content easily, albeit being time consuming.

The price of the 512GB edition is $440 CAD, I can get more for my money with multiple 256GB, but I am open to suggestions and advice of course! On the long run, I expect to have many of these cards for daily operations.

Metabones to me is something of a novelty, and I have no knowledge on lenses yet, so I know I need to start there.

For a 'proper' video head on the tripod I plan to use, it comes with   SBH-100 Ball head - I don't know much about heads other than some lock well while others have mechanical and operational weaknesses. Any suggestions are appreciated. As far as cost, I am not looking to get the best possible deal, but good value for dollar spent based on what's available on the market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, mechtech said:

The SanDisk is an SD card certified for write speeds required to film 4k. I know it is very small, I am considering getting two of them, but I also keep in mind that while shooting in my home studio, I will have the ability to unload content easily, albeit being time consuming.

The price of the 512GB edition is $440 CAD, I can get more for my money with multiple 256GB, but I am open to suggestions and advice of course! On the long run, I expect to have many of these cards for daily operations.

How does the Sandisk SSDs fit into your workflow?  Are you buying SSDs to install in your workstation or to carry around as external storage?

 

When I am away from my home workstation, meaning I'm working on location and all I have are my filming gear and a MacBook Pro, I use a 2-3TB WD external drive to backup/store all the footage I filmed each day on the camera's memory cards.  If you are buying Sandisk SSDs for this purpose, and not going to be using something like an Atomos Ninja to record the camera's HDMI out onto the SSDs, you don't need SSDs.

 

Of course when I get home, everything gets backed up on my home NAS and storage of the workstation.

Guide: DSLR or Video camera?, Guide: Film/Photo makers' useful resources, Guide: Lenses, a quick primer

Nikon D4, Nikon D800E, Fuji X-E2, Canon G16, Gopro Hero 3+, iPhone 5s. Hasselblad 500C/M, Sony PXW-FS7

ICT Consultant, Photographer, Video producer, Scuba diver and underwater explorer, Nature & humanitarian documentary producer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, ALwin said:

How does the Sandisk SSDs fit into your workflow?

 

When I am away from my home workstation, meaning I'm working on location and all I have are my filming gear and a MacBook Pro, I use a 2-3TB WD external drive to backup/store all the footage I filmed each day on the camera's memory cards.  If you are buying Sandisk SSDs for this purpose, and not going to be using something like an Atomos Ninja to record the camera's HDMI out onto the SSDs, you don't need SSDs.

They are not SSDs, but SD memory cards for the camera

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, mechtech said:

They are not SSDs, but SD memory cards for the camera

My bad, I'm reading this topic on a phone and thought you were talking about SSD drives.... been a long day.

 

 

If you get the Sony A6300, don't start out getting any other lens then the Sony 18-105 f/4 OSS PZ lens.  This lens is quite sufficient for video, especially on a small camera like the A6300.  I use this lens with my Sony PXW-FS7.

 

256GB memory cards should be fine then, 512 for the moment is still pricey.  Though perhaps you can consider getting multiple 128GB too.  What if you have filmed for an entire day on that 256 card and the data either becomes corrupted or you lose it?  Picking memory cards is always a personal choice, I personally do not prefer to "put all my eggs in one basket" by buying super large capacity cards.  I prefer multiple smaller capacity cards so that even if one card is lost, chances are that only a small portion of the work I've done is gone forever.

 

Manfrotto makes a nice small video fluid head for small cameras.  I don't remember the exact model number, something in their 500 series.  Tripods are something you also need to think about, while smaller tripods are easier to travel with they are often less stable than larger or heavier tripods.  I also avoid gimmicky tripods (especially for video), like that Vanguard model where the center column can be moved to a horizontal position.

 

Guide: DSLR or Video camera?, Guide: Film/Photo makers' useful resources, Guide: Lenses, a quick primer

Nikon D4, Nikon D800E, Fuji X-E2, Canon G16, Gopro Hero 3+, iPhone 5s. Hasselblad 500C/M, Sony PXW-FS7

ICT Consultant, Photographer, Video producer, Scuba diver and underwater explorer, Nature & humanitarian documentary producer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on the overall size and weight of your rig (barely anything even accounting for an LCD, cage, lens and whatnot), that Vanguard model would be an effective and affordable choice, esp given your desire to get product shots. Having used it first hand, it's very functional. Perhaps a bit too much for a FS7, but a teeny weeny a6300, even kitted to the max? Perfect. 

 

If you really want something smaller or lighter weight, you could look into carbon fiber offerings out there, but obviously that'll come at a premium. 

 

I'd suggest stocking up on a ton of u3 64gig cards, i get about an 1.2 hours of record time with 100mbit 4K XAVC on my A7sII's. 128GB is worthwhile if you don't want to swap too much, but as Alwin said it's not preferable to put all your eggs in one basket. 256GB sd cards are plain overkill at this point. 

 

As far as external batteries go, what I love about the consumer Sony models is their ability to charge via micro USB. So just slap on a decent sized portable USB charger, wire up and you're good to go. 

 

For lenses, it's really personal preference and how much money you're willing to fork up. Personally, this is where i'd drop the most of my cash and go the used route to save even more. The Sony 18-105 suggested is a decent run and gun telephoto to cover a wide range of situations. I'd also suggest tacking on a Sony 35mm f1.8 (equivalent to about 50mm on your 35mm sensor). This prime will give you that blurry background, bokeh look that's often associated with the film look and would be great for getting sweet product shots. It's also small and light as hell.

 

If you have cash left over after all that, the next upgrade you could consider external record like the Atomos Flame, which beyond being a great HDR monitor will breath new life into your camera giving you 4K at 4:2:2 DNxHR or ProRes and letting you put any SSDs you may have laying around to good use. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow thanks guys! This has been valuable and helpful. I'm very appreciative of your time and feedback! I'm able to reflect more and more on the full picture, and zone in on picking up some satisfactory key gear without guesswork. The amount of models available are endless.

I will definitely opt for multiple smaller memory cards.

Good to know that the Vanguard can hold the weight and do well as is, because it's truly applicable for my needs and not very expensive.

The Sony 18-105 and Sony 35mm f1.8 both sound like great starting points for most different types of shooting that I will need most frequently. From here I guess it's just a question of learning the ropes and finding more lenses that fit me.


Sony a6300 - 1600 CAD
Sony 35mm f1.8 ~ 400 CAD
Sony 18-105 ~ 600 CAD

Yi 4K - 150 CAD + accessories 50 CAD 
SanDisk Extreme Pro 64GB UHS-I/U3 x 4 - 170 CAD
Vanguard Alta Pro 263AB
 Tripod + SBH-100 Ball head - 230 CAD
Steadicam Merlin 2 - What a deal! - 269 USD down to 169 MIR* 
Manfrotto MVM500 Monopod + 500 series head ~ 375 CAD

Lighting - 600CAD+ for CFL, softboxes, reflectors, Chinaball - LED pannel for camera maybe, will look these up, and increase budget if needed to have a good starting kit. I plan on upgrading to westscott LED lighting once I have learned how to utilize cheaper options better.

Now we are sitting at around $4,400, but I might not buy all the items at once, probably will delay the 35mm f1.8 lense for a month or two, as well as the monopod. I am also ok with used items, if any on market at time of purchase, but I dont expect large markdowns.

 

Sound:

 

This is also an ever growing category, where I will start with minimal amount of quality gear, and add-on when the time comes. Since I mainly need to do product reviews for now, the most versatile and long-term optiona I found are the wireless lav mic EW 100 G3 or the latest AVX MKE2 kit. I am leaning towards the AVX even though I don't plan on using the auto-adjustment features.

Sennheiser EW 100 G3 - ~950 CAD
or
Sennheiser AVX MKE2 Lav Kit ~ 1300 CAD

Addons (maybe)

Audio-Technica ATR-6550 3.5mm Shotgun Mic - 100 CAD
Audio-Technica AT2020 XLRM for voice overs, podcasting or equivalent USB mic.  ~140-200 CAD

I already own a couple audio boards, respectively Motu's 828mk3 and MicroBook II, studio monitors, and a couple of Mics.

 

Atomos Shogun Flame - 2000 CAD

 

This looks awesome. I would opt for Shogun to have most capabilities available. I have more than a couple of SSDs around being unused as well. Price tag is higher than the camera however, so It would maybe be on my second or latest third round of upgrades.

Total: Estimated $8000 + CAD.
Starting to look like a legit money pit :D 
I will split up purchases across quarterly periods, getting what I need most first. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, mechtech said:

snip

OK, here's some ways you can save money:

  • Definitely hold off on buying that 35mm prime lens, the 18-105 alone is enough for quite a lot of stuff.
  • You can get the RodeLink wireless lav system instead of the Sennheisers, they are cheaper though quite good.
  • You definitely do not need an Atomos Shogun Flame, not even a Ninja Flame.  This is way overkill for filming with an A6300.  Only consider it if you are making money from producing videos.  Any benefit you gain from using the Atomos recorders with an A6300 will be negated by uploading videos to YouTube or Vimeo.  They're more useful if you have other distribution pipelines.  If you need to work with a codec like ProRes you can always transcode the XAVC file from the A6300 before editing.
  • You can save yourself a lot of money on lighting equip if you know how to buy.  There are also online videos and guides on making your own diffusers, softboxes, etc. from cheap stuff you can buy in a general store or IKEA.
  • You can find cheap lightstands on Amazon.ca for around $15 CAD each.  There are also cheap LED panels on Amazon.ca.  If you're already prepared to accept the problems that might arise with using CFL tubes, you will not be worse off in buying cheap LED video light panels from Amazon.
  • You can consider getting a tripod like this ( https://www.amazon.ca/koolehaoda-Camera-Monopod-Portable-Compact/dp/B00MUC1ROY/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1473386704&sr=8-4&keywords=mefoto+tripod ) which can also be transformed into a Monopod with one of the legs being detachable.
  • This is another brand tripod that can also be converted to a monopod.  Mefoto is a brand I am more familiar with than Koolehaoda. https://www.amazon.ca/MeFOTO-Aluminum-Roadtrip-Travel-Monopod/dp/B00BETIVWK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1473387060&sr=8-1&keywords=mefoto+tripod+monopod
  • Or a video tripod like this, though it will be bigger and heavier but does come with a video head.  I am not sure how good it is though. https://www.amazon.ca/CowboyStudio-FT9901-Professional-Camera-Tripod/dp/B0072B0UPA/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1473386783&sr=8-2&keywords=video+tripod
  • For these tripods (the brands I am not familiar with), you'll have to rely on the buyer reviews or do some online research.
  • Audio add on, a nice shotgun mic can also be used for voice over.  Or use the RodeLink wireless lav.

Guide: DSLR or Video camera?, Guide: Film/Photo makers' useful resources, Guide: Lenses, a quick primer

Nikon D4, Nikon D800E, Fuji X-E2, Canon G16, Gopro Hero 3+, iPhone 5s. Hasselblad 500C/M, Sony PXW-FS7

ICT Consultant, Photographer, Video producer, Scuba diver and underwater explorer, Nature & humanitarian documentary producer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay- so here's what I posed earlier on an older thread.

 

If you don't mind buying grey market (used) look into getting a Gh4 or something. You can pick one up for about for about $1000 (usd) on ebay, and it's going to give you arguably much better quality than those sonys will. Some good lenses to get would be something like old used AIS Nikon lenses, like a 105 2.5 or a 135 2.8 or something. Then you could get a cheaper standard range zoom lens and you'd be all set. Having an awesome prime for video and photo stuff, while having a wide zoom for your flexibility sounds like it would give you much better quality. Along with the added bonus that your rig, at that point, would be a good bit more expandable. The only downside is that you'd have to get an adapter for your AIS F mount lens, though it wouldn't be much more and you'd get much MUCH better quality than about any other lens out there. 

I work as a contractor for everything from photo/video to broadcast and networking. 

I use an old HP Laptop forked up on top of a photography textbook. 

Right now this is what I use: Fuji X100T, Fuji X100, Fuji X-E1, XF 18 f2, XF 35 1.4, Nikon d7000, Nikkor 180 2,8 AFIS, Nikkor 60 1.8.

I've got more crap laying around for other jobs and hobbies, though a lot of that isn't applicable to the interests of this forum, so I'll keep myself back from adding it all to the list. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JohnBRoark said:

If you don't mind buying grey market (used) look into getting a Gh4 or something. You can pick one up for about for about $1000 (usd) on ebay, and it's going to give you arguably much better quality than those sonys will.

I have some questions:

Have you used the GH4 before, or the other cameras the various OP's are considering?

Have you used a DSLR setup for filming before?

How's your experience with filming using a camera with a form factor that's designed for photography first?

Guide: DSLR or Video camera?, Guide: Film/Photo makers' useful resources, Guide: Lenses, a quick primer

Nikon D4, Nikon D800E, Fuji X-E2, Canon G16, Gopro Hero 3+, iPhone 5s. Hasselblad 500C/M, Sony PXW-FS7

ICT Consultant, Photographer, Video producer, Scuba diver and underwater explorer, Nature & humanitarian documentary producer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, ALwin said:

I have some questions:

Have you used the GH4 before, or the other cameras the various OP's are considering?

Have you used a DSLR setup for filming before?

How's your experience with filming using a camera with a form factor that's designed for photography first?

Have you used the GH4 before, or the other cameras the various OP's are considering?

 

Yeah, I've used a Gh4 quite a few times. Quite numerously at this particular international organization that owned a good few of them. Mostly because they're inexpensive and you can get some seriously, seriously good quality out of those things. And though I haven't messed around with that exact model, I'm sure that it's an okay camera for the money. I, personally, never liked any of those 'a' series line sony stuff. Their higher quality production level stuff for broadcast is almost unbeatable, though that's the only use I'd ever recommend them for.

 

Have you used a DSLR setup for filming before?

 

I've actually never had a problem using DSLR's for video. Though, I really don't honestly recommend photo gear for video gear- especially 4k. The stuff just isn't made for it, you quickly run into overheating and disk writing issues that a typical professional grade body won't give you. Though, not everyone's been able to use the $20,000 production gear stuff I've messed with. Though, I know of some awesome professionals using those AIS lenses I personally adore and endorse. And to be honest- for the advantages you're going to get with shooting on a video lens are few- if any at that price level. You're really not going to see a big difference that cine glass will bring unless you want to spend thousands.

 

How's your experience with filming using a camera with a form factor that's designed for photography first?

 

Actually, I've used everything from smartphones up to huge shoulder rig broadcast cameras and to be honest, they're all okay. For pick-up-and-go type shoots my X-E1's actually served me pretty well for being a rather approachable little camera. It always just depends on the shoot and what's going to be easiest to work with. Mostly what you'd be thinking about at much more expensive level shoots isn't really image quality- because just about everything above $5,000 is going to look good enough (like a blackmagic ursa for example). But rather, how well you can work with and make stories with the camera you choose to use.

 

To be honest, I always hate getting stuff online because I can't really put my hands on a camera and get to know how it works just by images on a screen. Especially because there's no good shops around here for doing that kind of thing. But- what I can tell you to try to answer your question is that it doesn't really honestly matter the raw specs of the camera, as I've found to be the case with ridiculously expensive stuff I've used before. But rather, what you can make with the camera that you've chosen to use.

 

That's why I don't think OP's opinion is more valid than mine. I've used quite a few cameras at all sorts of different price levels and to be honest, it just depends from person to person. I recommend the GH4 to quite a few people because you've got a whole bunch of people that worship the camera. I've worked with some huge companies and directors using those things for certain shoots, just because of their many features. Yet, they might not work best in other situations. It honestly just depends, there's no solution that's going to fit everyone's needs. 

I work as a contractor for everything from photo/video to broadcast and networking. 

I use an old HP Laptop forked up on top of a photography textbook. 

Right now this is what I use: Fuji X100T, Fuji X100, Fuji X-E1, XF 18 f2, XF 35 1.4, Nikon d7000, Nikkor 180 2,8 AFIS, Nikkor 60 1.8.

I've got more crap laying around for other jobs and hobbies, though a lot of that isn't applicable to the interests of this forum, so I'll keep myself back from adding it all to the list. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, JohnBRoark said:

snip

Then you and I seem to have similar types of experiences with camera gear at various price points, and I agree that what you can make with the camera is more important than the camera itself.

 

But the OP here wants a small lightweight kit to have an easier time traveling around and the new Sony A#### series cameras are entirely a new generation better than the previous NEX series of Mirrorless cameras.  An A6300 + 18-105 Sony PZ lens is more than enough for a variety of situations.

 

While those old Nikon lenses are still very good, being manual also means carrying extra accessories like a follow focus.  And multiple lenses.

 

And while I also think the GH4 is a good camera, I have never liked the MFT sensor with a 2x crop (2.3x crop if filming 4K on the GH4).  

 

The A6300 image is also cleaner at comparable high ISO.

 

Guide: DSLR or Video camera?, Guide: Film/Photo makers' useful resources, Guide: Lenses, a quick primer

Nikon D4, Nikon D800E, Fuji X-E2, Canon G16, Gopro Hero 3+, iPhone 5s. Hasselblad 500C/M, Sony PXW-FS7

ICT Consultant, Photographer, Video producer, Scuba diver and underwater explorer, Nature & humanitarian documentary producer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ALwin said:

Then you and I seem to have similar types of experiences with camera gear at various price points, and I agree that what you can make with the camera is more important than the camera itself.

 

But the OP here wants a small lightweight kit to have an easier time traveling around and the new Sony A#### series cameras are entirely a new generation better than the previous NEX series of Mirrorless cameras.  An A6300 + 18-105 Sony PZ lens is more than enough for a variety of situations.

 

While those old Nikon lenses are still very good, being manual also means carrying extra accessories like a follow focus.  And multiple lenses.

 

And while I also think the GH4 is a good camera, I have never liked the MFT sensor with a 2x crop (2.3x crop if filming 4K on the GH4).  

 

The A6300 image is also cleaner at comparable high ISO.

 

You can even see on the image there that the sony is bigger. Not because it has a bigger body- but because of the lenses, and I'll tell you why. That sensor is so close to the rear element that it has to be somewhat large, just so that it can spread light across the sensor. 

 

Also- a lot of the stuff you point out here is somewhat negligible. The size difference is barley even going to register since they're both about the same, to be honest. Except for the fact that the GH4 just has a tad bit more girth to it. Yet, all of your 4/3rd mount lenses are going to be a bit smaller, like I said earlier- to make up for this difference. 

 

For the image quality you can seriously see- even through all of the youtube compression, that the GH4 is the clear winner there in image sharpness. Not only does it have a bit of sharpness- but what's important is that it has a lot more image character. Something I never see enough of in these Sony cameras that aren't really much more than a spec sheet. 

 

And as far as high ISO, it's another negligible point. Even in that video that you linked, even if they've got that nasty low contrast cliche going on there with their color correction, you can see the gh4 going up a good +21 db and still retaining it's beautiful color saturation and sharpness, much over the sony's dull lifeless sensor.

 

One last point is that, other than the write speed and improved codecs over the Sony, one of the reasons why the GH4's sensor is so nice compared to the Sony's is the low gain performance. Yeah- low ISO, which no one really understands because this whole industry's mostly been like "WHAT IT'S VERY SLIGHTLY BETTER AT ISO 939405940??1!one/?!!11!". But the thing is, to engineer your sensor to have such high iso capabilities, you're going to be losing image quality on the other side. Which is why Leica never worried about having a camera that can even do like +6 db, Just because their image is so, so much cleaner than anyone elses at anywhere from 0db to +3db. 

 

Finally, those AIS lenses are very small. You could get a 105 2.5 or something for cheap thats going to be half the size of a modern lens of the same focal length and just throw it in a bag, leave the adapter on the lens just so that you don't have to compromise  quality over having a smaller camera, because in the long run- it doesn't make a lick of difference.

 

To be honest, I've never got this whole "travel" problem. If that's the issue just get a Fuji X100 with the fixed lens and boom, done. But the thing is that people want these really small cameras that are honestly just very slightly smaller that cost twice as much and have half the image quality. I've never, ever had an issue carrying around my DSLR with a big huge 180 2.8 and a 60 hanging around in a case inside the bag, along with two or three other cameras. There really just isn't much of a difference.

I work as a contractor for everything from photo/video to broadcast and networking. 

I use an old HP Laptop forked up on top of a photography textbook. 

Right now this is what I use: Fuji X100T, Fuji X100, Fuji X-E1, XF 18 f2, XF 35 1.4, Nikon d7000, Nikkor 180 2,8 AFIS, Nikkor 60 1.8.

I've got more crap laying around for other jobs and hobbies, though a lot of that isn't applicable to the interests of this forum, so I'll keep myself back from adding it all to the list. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, JohnBRoark said:

Snip

The Sony had a Metabones adapter mounted on it.

 

Image character?  That can be edited in post with color grading, and the video was shot using LOG modes.  The image from the A6300 is just as sharp.

 

Sony sensors perform very well in low ISO/gain too.

 

The 18-105 from Sony is a nice small light weight power zoom lens.

 

Travel and carry weight is up to the OP to decide, not you.

 

Fuji, until the new X-T2 came out, doesn't have any proper video recording modes.  My X-E2 shoots only 1080p30 and 60.

Guide: DSLR or Video camera?, Guide: Film/Photo makers' useful resources, Guide: Lenses, a quick primer

Nikon D4, Nikon D800E, Fuji X-E2, Canon G16, Gopro Hero 3+, iPhone 5s. Hasselblad 500C/M, Sony PXW-FS7

ICT Consultant, Photographer, Video producer, Scuba diver and underwater explorer, Nature & humanitarian documentary producer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, ALwin said:

The Sony had a Metabones adapter mounted on it.

 

Image character?  That can be edited in post with color grading, and the video was shot using LOG modes.  The image from the A6300 is just as sharp.

 

Sony sensors perform very well in low ISO/gain too.

 

The 18-105 from Sony is a nice small light weight power zoom lens.

 

Travel and carry weight is up to the OP to decide, not you.

 

Fuji, until the new X-T2 came out, doesn't have any proper video recording modes.  My X-E2 shoots only 1080p30 and 60.

Well, still. You can see how big the adapter is. Besides, you're not really going to tell much of a difference between the two and the very slightly added girth doesn't really effect anything.

 

Well, no. Haha, not at all. That gh4 actually has decent life and color in it, to which the Sony just sucks all the beauty out of it for 'raw performance'. Also, the gh4 in that video you posted was quite a bit sharper. Due to its superior sensor and codec.  

 

Yes, Sony probably has fine iso performance, maybe slightly better than the gh4 in that regard. Though, that honestly doesn't matter for YouTube and Internet based media.

 

So you're saying that a sixteen element massive zoom is going to get you better quality than a prime that costs half the price? Especially when I've known professonals shooting for decades that swore their life on those things. Back when film was all you could use the 105 2.5 was considered to be too sharp to do portrait work. 

 

I made that statement to show that carrying one extra lens isn't really any big deal. It is OPs decision, all the cameras here would work just fine. 

 

So? 1080p is just fine. A Fuji is a photo camera and it isn't designed to do video. Though, I've used my older X-E1 on commercial shoots before without an issue. 

I work as a contractor for everything from photo/video to broadcast and networking. 

I use an old HP Laptop forked up on top of a photography textbook. 

Right now this is what I use: Fuji X100T, Fuji X100, Fuji X-E1, XF 18 f2, XF 35 1.4, Nikon d7000, Nikkor 180 2,8 AFIS, Nikkor 60 1.8.

I've got more crap laying around for other jobs and hobbies, though a lot of that isn't applicable to the interests of this forum, so I'll keep myself back from adding it all to the list. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, JohnBRoark said:

snip

If the OP gets the A6300 and the 18-105 lens, he won't need an adapter.  The 18-105 is a pretty sharp lens, I use it to film 4K on my camera and the details in my subjects' hair are fantastic.  I don't say that the old 105 lens is a bad one, but why get a lens that requires an adapter when a lens that's fully compatible works just as well and can be switched between manual and automatic.

 

YES, color grading can match footage from any camera (at least in the color department, can't do much about crop factors, image resolutions and different DOFs).  Both cameras were tested using their own LOG mode, and the video doesn't show any color grading.  I know with 100% certainty that both cameras' footage can be graded in post to look the same.  I've recently worked on a project where footage comes from a GoPro, 5D mk III, FS7, and an Osmo and gotten the colors to match.  What I can't do of course is to make the DOF and resolution from the smaller cameras of the GoPro and Osmo to match with the footage from the 5D and FS7s.

 

Because the GH4 has a 2x crop factor, you can notice in the video that the background is more in focus than the footage from the A6300 with the larger sensor.  The video shows both cameras using the same Canon lens with adapters for both the Sony and Panasonic.  In the footage, where the focal plane is located, footage from both cameras are equally sharp or at least has very little difference that can be improved in post.  What makes the GH4 appear sharper is the DOF due to the crop factor.  I've viewed the 4K video on a 5K screen.

 

I really don't think the GH4 has a superior sensor and both cameras offer only 8-bit 4:2:0 for internal recording. 10-bit or 4:2:2 requires using an external recorder for both cameras.

 

Resolution isn't the point, the frame rates are.  For me, any video camera I use or own needs to have 23.97, 25 and 29.97 frame rates, other frame rates like 24, 30, 50, 59.97, 60, and more are a bonus to have.

Guide: DSLR or Video camera?, Guide: Film/Photo makers' useful resources, Guide: Lenses, a quick primer

Nikon D4, Nikon D800E, Fuji X-E2, Canon G16, Gopro Hero 3+, iPhone 5s. Hasselblad 500C/M, Sony PXW-FS7

ICT Consultant, Photographer, Video producer, Scuba diver and underwater explorer, Nature & humanitarian documentary producer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ALwin said:

If the OP gets the A6300 and the 18-105 lens, he won't need an adapter.  The 18-105 is a pretty sharp lens, I use it to film 4K on my camera and the details in my subjects' hair are fantastic.  I don't say that the old 105 lens is a bad one, but why get a lens that requires an adapter when a lens that's fully compatible works just as well and can be switched between manual and automatic.

 

YES, color grading can match footage from any camera (at least in the color department, can't do much about crop factors, image resolutions and different DOFs).  Both cameras were tested using their own LOG mode, and the video doesn't show any color grading.  I know with 100% certainty that both cameras' footage can be graded in post to look the same.  I've recently worked on a project where footage comes from a GoPro, 5D mk III, FS7, and an Osmo and gotten the colors to match.  What I can't do of course is to make the DOF and resolution from the smaller cameras of the GoPro and Osmo to match with the footage from the 5D and FS7s.

 

Because the GH4 has a 2x crop factor, you can notice in the video that the background is more in focus than the footage from the A6300 with the larger sensor.  The video shows both cameras using the same Canon lens with adapters for both the Sony and Panasonic.  In the footage, where the focal plane is located, footage from both cameras are equally sharp or at least has very little difference that can be improved in post.  What makes the GH4 appear sharper is the DOF due to the crop factor.  I've viewed the 4K video on a 5K screen.

 

I really don't think the GH4 has a superior sensor and both cameras offer only 8-bit 4:2:0 for internal recording. 10-bit or 4:2:2 requires using an external recorder for both cameras.

 

Resolution isn't the point, the frame rates are.  For me, any video camera I use or own needs to have 23.97, 25 and 29.97 frame rates, other frame rates like 24, 30, 50, 59.97, 60, and more are a bonus to have.

All of these points are completely negligible. If you get an actually decent lens, like a 105 2.5, then you won't have an issue with subject isolation. You'd still be saving money if you just got an adapter and left it on the back of the lens, no issue there. Auto settings should never be used for video due to the way the camera will be changing them so often whilst recording- it just looks nasty. 

 

Also- you can of course always try and add in or replicate the color of a GH4, though that's always going to be added in. It's better to have a camera that's able to shoot with decent colors on the sensor, Though, since you like looking at a spec sheet so much, your GH4 is actually shooting at proper Cinema4k (4096 x 2160) resolution, compared to the a6300 that shoots at 4K 3840 x 2160. And- like I said earlier, it has a superior codec. Not with the 10bit color- but with the actual amount of detail recorded. With the gh4 actually recording internally at TWICE the bitrate of the Sony. But- it gets even better. The Sony shoots at 30fps, while the GH4 can do various speeds anywhere from 24fps, to 96fps. Which in my opinion, and in the opinion of many other professionals I know of, is a more useful range than 24-30fps.

 

Not only that, but is the 105 2.5 a superior lens. No, it doesn't zoom. I guess you'll just have to learn to use your feet or how to actually change lenses on a camera (what? I know right crazy) but is it also half the price of the Sony's. You can get okay results with it, but here's a famous shot taken with the little inexpensive 105 2.8. If small is your game, you really need to pick one of these things up. They're going to be nothing compared to the huge Sony lens hanging off your mount. AND, you're going to get far superior subject isolation and quality due to the lower element count of the prime. It's just physics. 

 

Though, at the end of the day, these arguments are petty. If OP decides to get an over-expensive camera or something that's used by numerous industry professionals is their choice. Us endlessly arguing isn't going to fix anything. 

I work as a contractor for everything from photo/video to broadcast and networking. 

I use an old HP Laptop forked up on top of a photography textbook. 

Right now this is what I use: Fuji X100T, Fuji X100, Fuji X-E1, XF 18 f2, XF 35 1.4, Nikon d7000, Nikkor 180 2,8 AFIS, Nikkor 60 1.8.

I've got more crap laying around for other jobs and hobbies, though a lot of that isn't applicable to the interests of this forum, so I'll keep myself back from adding it all to the list. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JohnBRoark said:

snip

You'll have a hard time getting very thin DOF with a 2x crop sensor, it's easier with a 1.5 crop sensor or even better a FF sensor.  As for auto settings, it depends on the situation and sometimes it's quite useful and other times it's useless.  But better to have the option to switch/utilize auto and not use it than not have it and need it.  And when I mentioned auto in my previous post, I was talking about switching between AF and MF.

 

The Sony A6300 shoots at various frame rates, with 30p max for UHD and up to 120fps for FHD.  DCI 4K and UHD, while different in resolutions, not really that big of a deal.  The GH4 also maxes at 30p for 4K filming.

 

Color correcting and grading is a skill that every video editor should know.  Regardless of whatever the camera can record and it actually makes it more fun and enables the editor to be more creative.  The GH4 records at 200mbps only for FHD and while that may be more than what the A6300 can record, but the XAVC-S from the A6300 is also quite usable.  At 4K both record 100mbps.

 

While I personally prefer using prime lenses on my camera as much as possible, and using gimbals and dollies and sliders to capture smooth movement, there are cases where having a zoom lens (even a power zoom lens) is very helpful.  It also means I don't have to carry all those extra stuff when I want to travel light.

 

1 hour ago, JohnBRoark said:

but here's a famous shot taken with the little inexpensive 105 2.8

I don't care, there's so many famous photographs taken with so many different lenses. Just because Steve McCurry took the Afghan Girl photo with that lens does not necessarily make it a superior lens.  There are many modern lenses which are far better than that 105 lens you keep worshipping.  This photo is famous because of the subject, not the gear used.

 

Here's a portrait I shot with a lens that according to you would probably be less superior than your beloved 105.  Yet the image is as sharp as the Afghan Girl photo, albeit I was using a wide aperture for a thin DOF and focused mainly on the eyes.

 

Spoiler

8479837894_0e099930b6_o.jpg

 

I may look at the spec sheets to check some facts, but I have rented, borrowed and used many different types of cameras.  Instead of having others convincing me why one camera system is bad and another is good, I prefer to actually test various camera systems myself and form my own opinion.

 

You can claim to know professionals who prefer X gear over Y gear, I'm working with professionals who can work with any gear and get the job done regardless even if we each have our own gear or brand preference.  I honestly don't care whatever camera the OP buys, but looking at his or her requirements I think the A6300 with the lens I recommended is more suitable for his use case than a GH4.  Especially as a GH4 + 105 combo means the FOV is going to be like a 210mm lens if a telecompressor adapter is not used.  Are you going to suggest the OP to invest in more lenses to cover a wider range of focal lengths, that just adds to the cost.

Guide: DSLR or Video camera?, Guide: Film/Photo makers' useful resources, Guide: Lenses, a quick primer

Nikon D4, Nikon D800E, Fuji X-E2, Canon G16, Gopro Hero 3+, iPhone 5s. Hasselblad 500C/M, Sony PXW-FS7

ICT Consultant, Photographer, Video producer, Scuba diver and underwater explorer, Nature & humanitarian documentary producer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, ALwin said:

You'll have a hard time getting very thin DOF with a 2x crop sensor, it's easier with a 1.5 crop sensor or even better a FF sensor.  As for auto settings, it depends on the situation and sometimes it's quite useful and other times it's useless.  But better to have the option to switch/utilize auto and not use it than not have it and need it.  And when I mentioned auto in my previous post, I was talking about switching between AF and MF.

 

The Sony A6300 shoots at various frame rates, with 30p max for UHD and up to 120fps for FHD.  DCI 4K and UHD, while different in resolutions, not really that big of a deal.  The GH4 also maxes at 30p for 4K filming.

 

Color correcting and grading is a skill that every video editor should know.  Regardless of whatever the camera can record and it actually makes it more fun and enables the editor to be more creative.  The GH4 records at 200mbps only for FHD and while that may be more than what the A6300 can record, but the XAVC-S from the A6300 is also quite usable.  At 4K both record 100mbps.

 

While I personally prefer using prime lenses on my camera as much as possible, and using gimbals and dollies and sliders to capture smooth movement, there are cases where having a zoom lens (even a power zoom lens) is very helpful.  It also means I don't have to carry all those extra stuff when I want to travel light.

 

I don't care, there's so many famous photographs taken with so many different lenses. Just because Steve McCurry took the Afghan Girl photo with that lens does not necessarily make it a superior lens.  There are many modern lenses which are far better than that 105 lens you keep worshipping.  This photo is famous because of the subject, not the gear used.

 

Here's a portrait I shot with a lens that according to you would probably be less superior than your beloved 105.  Yet the image is as sharp as the Afghan Girl photo, albeit I was using a wide aperture for a thin DOF and focused mainly on the eyes.

 

  Hide contents

8479837894_0e099930b6_o.jpg

 

I may look at the spec sheets to check some facts, but I have rented, borrowed and used many different types of cameras.  Instead of having others convincing me why one camera system is bad and another is good, I prefer to actually test various camera systems myself and form my own opinion.

 

You can claim to know professionals who prefer X gear over Y gear, I'm working with professionals who can work with any gear and get the job done regardless even if we each have our own gear or brand preference.  I honestly don't care whatever camera the OP buys, but looking at his or her requirements I think the A6300 with the lens I recommended is more suitable for his use case than a GH4.  Especially as a GH4 + 105 combo means the FOV is going to be like a 210mm lens if a telecompressor adapter is not used.  Are you going to suggest the OP to invest in more lenses to cover a wider range of focal lengths, that just adds to the cost.

Alright, not going to argue too much about it anymore, really. Considering that it's not worth it sense they're both okay cameras. Though- the 105 is half the price of the 18-105, and with the saved money you could also get something wide and cheap as well. So it's honestly not adding a thing to the cost, yet adding quite a bit in quality. And yeah- I did also point that out earlier. That I, and many other working professionals I know of, have made awesome stuff from cheap kit lenses and point and shoots to huge production level cameras. Though, while I do still belive that, I honestly still argue endlessly about gear because I'd like to get the best stuff I can for the money. 

 

As far as lenses go- the 105 is famous for a reason. The subject was really important there, but the thing is that it had this amazing compression and whatnot that a lot of other modern lenses do not have themselves. Sharpness is awesome and all, though for portraits it's better to have decent color and compression in the way the lens is built. Which is why most people will spend so much on an old Leica or Nikon lens, just because it has all of those more contemporary styles of 'better compression and isolation over image sharpness'.

 

If we're gonna start dropping recent pics, here's one taken with an old AIS construction lens  Here's another, and here's one more. As you can see, these lenses are quite capable as well. Even at super high ISO's with fast moving subjects in little light. Did I mention that this is all through MF? AF really isn't needed, especially for video. Because like I also said earlier, your af is going to be constantly changing during the process of filming and that's honestly a little distracting.

 

Anyway, I really don't want to argue too much about this anymore. The points we're both bringing up are so negligible it doesn't even really matter. I guess we can just leave it on a preference basis, as both cameras preform in a similar way. 

I work as a contractor for everything from photo/video to broadcast and networking. 

I use an old HP Laptop forked up on top of a photography textbook. 

Right now this is what I use: Fuji X100T, Fuji X100, Fuji X-E1, XF 18 f2, XF 35 1.4, Nikon d7000, Nikkor 180 2,8 AFIS, Nikkor 60 1.8.

I've got more crap laying around for other jobs and hobbies, though a lot of that isn't applicable to the interests of this forum, so I'll keep myself back from adding it all to the list. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JohnBRoark said:

snip

As someone who films with DSLRs, when I was looking for a new camera to replace my old 5D2 as the primary camera the GH4 was one of the cameras I rented and tried out together with the 5D3.  4K wasn't important for me at the time.  I can honestly say, while the GH4 is a good camera and popular with many of my friends, it just didn't fit my needs.  The 2x crop factor that ALwin mentioned was one of the things that pushed me away from investing in the GH4 and choosing to buy the 5D3 instead.  The other thing is that the GH4 is horrible in low light situations and starts to fail at ISO 1600.  For photographers it might not be an issue since it's easier to deal with noise in a photo than with video.  Many of my friends who use the GH4 also have a camera with a larger sensor as their main camera.  They use the GH4 either as B/C cameras or for their own personal use.  Now of course I've moved up to a Sony FS7 which just arrived today, thanks to ALwin's knowledge about various cameras and due to the store not having the Ursa Mini 4.6K in stock.  He also owns a FS7 and has shown me some stuff that the camera can do.  I have also used a rental version for the past few weeks and learned how to match the footage shot with the camera to the footage shot with my old 5D3 and 5D2.

 

While that Nikon 105mm lens may be a fantastic lens it really doesn't seem like an ideal focal length for filming with a camera that has a large crop factor like the GH4.  A 105mm lens will give the field of view of a 210mm lens, which is very narrow for video.  The camera would have to be moved far back to properly frame a scene even if the cameraman wants just a headshot for filming an interview.  Thats why many filmmakers and DPs, including myself, use various prime lenses with 24mm, 35mm and 50mm being the most common and most used focal lengths, and those are on either full frame or super35 sensors.  While 105mm is a good focal length, for video it's a bit on the long end for us.  We'll use such a focal length outdoors or in large spaces where we need to show that the subject being filmed is in a bit of a distance but anything for most indoor filming it's just too long, especially on a camera with a 2x crop factor.

 

Image compression and subject isolation is a matter of focal length and distance from subject which can be achieved with many telephoto lenses.  The Canon 85mm f1.2 is one of the best portrait lenses and it provides a decent amount of compression.  Another popular lens for portraiture is a 70-200mm f2.8 zoom lens, and both Canon and Nikon produce fantastic lenses of this kind that are wonderful for portraiture.

 

The argument between using auto focus and manual focus, there is no right or wrong answer.  Each to their own, for both video and photography.  Auto focus for video can work very well in some situations and of course fail miserably in other situations.  When filming something such as a simple interview, keeping auto focus can be a life saver when the person being interviewed is moving around a bit due to his or her body language and expression while talking even if they're sitting down.  The camera can keep track of the face and adjust focus.  But it's not a good idea to use auto focus when filming a scene that has many elements moving in and out of the frame that can confuse the system that it doesn't know what it is supposed to be tracking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, JohnBRoark said:

The points we're both bringing up are so negligible

None of the points are negligible, you keep saying that, if you are serious you cannot dismiss specific features

 

The facts are
-he A6300 has a superior sensor (MFT is SHIT in low light) 
-the 4k image is arguably sharper than the A7S2, due to sony downsampling from a 6k image source to 4k - its probably the sharpest 4k until you get to like Ursa money

-the a6300 has less of a crop factor

 

Also times AF is very important in filming, have you watch the wonder list by philip bloom? sometimes he used AF on his cameras because he just didnt have 14 hands to control things, when you are running and gunning sometimes it has to be relied on

Honestly id take an A6300 over a GH4 anyday

 

The ONLY downside of the A6300 is rolling shutter, but easily controlled if you know what you are doing

or shove it on a CAME TV or Pilotfly H2

Desktop - Corsair 300r i7 4770k H100i MSI 780ti 16GB Vengeance Pro 2400mhz Crucial MX100 512gb Samsung Evo 250gb 2 TB WD Green, AOC Q2770PQU 1440p 27" monitor Laptop Clevo W110er - 11.6" 768p, i5 3230m, 650m GT 2gb, OCZ vertex 4 256gb,  4gb ram, Server: Fractal Define Mini, MSI Z78-G43, Intel G3220, 8GB Corsair Vengeance, 4x 3tb WD Reds in Raid 10, Phone Oppo Reno 10x 256gb , Camera Sony A7iii

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ShadowCaptain said:

The ONLY downside of the A6300 is rolling shutter, but easily controlled if you know what you are doing

The GH4 also has rolling shutter issues, but I think the A6300 is worse.  But as you said, someone who knows what they're doing can easily control it.

The GH4 is not a bad camera, I just don't think it's the right camera for everyone or every situation (like people who record their product unboxings/reviews who most likely film in their own home where space may be limited, that 2x crop will require the use of very wide focal lengths) and I'm fairly certain a lot of complete beginners to video recording will find it a bit more frustrating to use than a camera that has a larger sensor or a camcorder with a tiny sensor and integrated lens.

Guide: DSLR or Video camera?, Guide: Film/Photo makers' useful resources, Guide: Lenses, a quick primer

Nikon D4, Nikon D800E, Fuji X-E2, Canon G16, Gopro Hero 3+, iPhone 5s. Hasselblad 500C/M, Sony PXW-FS7

ICT Consultant, Photographer, Video producer, Scuba diver and underwater explorer, Nature & humanitarian documentary producer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×